Recommended Posts

Right the same people who beat this into their student's head that they need to maintain the flying wedge as long as possible and hold that right wrist bend. Now all of a sudden things change. Thats what I find funny about this whole situation. Brian Manzella is just an example. He built what 30 years teaching one thing then flips. Seems like alot of the stack and tilt guys are doing the same thing also. All you hear is maintain that wedge maintain that wedge. Now its flip cast and repeat....

Right the same people who beat this into their student's head that they need to maintain the flying wedge as long as possible and hold that right wrist bend. Now all of a sudden things change. Thats what I find funny about this whole situation. Brian Manzella is just an example. He built what 30 years teaching one thing then flips. Seems like alot of the stack and tilt guys are doing the same thing also. All you hear is maintain that wedge maintain that wedge. Now its flip cast and repeat....

I think that's misrepresentative.

Brian taught, by his own words, "max trigger delay" for a long time. That's literally "holding off
all
accumulators as long as possible."

S&T; has taught that you need to have flying wedge to impact. That's all. We see it coming out after that. We know it comes out. But 99.9% of golfers lose it BEFORE impact, hence S&T; being about "flying wedge" work.

And nobody's preaching casting or true flipping. Those occur prior to impact.

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm trying to grasp this. It seems like a natural thing to occur with a moderately strong grip when you cock your wrist. When you cock your (i'm going to pretend I'm corrrect handed) left hand and it is slightly turned away from the target, that angle is going to decrease in the right wrist. Then as you swing down that angle increases because of the weight, momentum of the swing. So this is works in correlation with another power producer. I'm not familar with the golf machine so I'm just going off thought and reason.

But this can't be a conscious move? I know one way to play some bad golf is to not have some firmness in your angles. I remember back a long time ago I thought that was how the wrist work (flipping). I was wrong. A feeling I have now (if any) is a flatting of the left wrist through the ball (if I was right handed) so I can lead with the handle and push the ball. This would do the opposite of creating power? Does that make sense?

Right the same people who beat this into their student's head that they need to maintain the flying wedge as long as possible and hold that right wrist bend. Now all of a sudden things change. Thats what I find funny about this whole situation. Brian Manzella is just an example. He built what 30 years teaching one thing then flips. Seems like alot of the stack and tilt guys are doing the same thing also. All you hear is maintain that wedge maintain that wedge. Now its flip cast and repeat....

I want to be very clear here, I won't be teaching anyone to flip. Freddy doesn't flip. Like I said, "flying wedge to palmar flexion" referring to the right wrist angle. Most need MORE flying wedge and I will continue to "beat this" into students (and myself
). This is more theory related, what actually happens after impact. Freddy is obviously on one side of the spectrum but nobody "maintains" the flying wedge into the followthrough. Some preach that you never lose it and deny the reality that we see, not us.

I'm trying to grasp this. It seems like a natural thing to occur with a moderately strong grip when you cock your wrist.

90%+ of people don't need to grasp this. And this applies whether you have a strong grip or not. The stronger your left-hand grip the more that wrist's cocking direction is in the same plane as this "PA5" but you can still see PA5 in action when they're 180 degrees to each other.

Originally Posted by Leftygolfer

But this can't be a conscious move? I know one way to play some bad golf is to not have some firmness in your angles. I remember back a long time ago I thought that was how the wrist work (flipping). I was wrong. A feeling I have now (if any) is a flatting of the left wrist through the ball (if I was right handed) so I can lead with the handle and push the ball. This would do the opposite of creating power? Does that make sense?

I think the key point is that the left wrist (for a righty) is flat
at impact
and if the right wrist is changing its angle, that's a way to add speed to the clubhead. The left wrist might roll, it might cup slightly, it might do both, but if the right wrist is straightening or "being thrown" as we called it, you can add power.

Timing it is another thing, but the game's best do it.

Originally Posted by mvmac

I want to be very clear here, I won't be teaching anyone to flip. Freddy doesn't flip. Like I said, "flying wedge to palmar flexion" referring to the right wrist angle. Most need MORE flying wedge and I will continue to "beat this" into students (and myself ). This is more theory related, what actually happens after impact. Freddy is obviously on one side of the spectrum but nobody "maintains" the flying wedge into the followthrough. Some preach that you never lose it and deny the reality that we see, not us.

Exactly.

To be clear: 99.9% of golfers need to feel like they maintain the wedge well into the follow through just to have some hope that it's there enough at impact.

Some Further Study...

Since putting this study out there, several others have spoken about it, directly or indirectly. There's been talk about how maintaining the right forearm flying wedge to P8 is not optimal (duh), nor is having too much shaft lean at impact (duh). There's also been talk that we're just being silly, and that the loss of the right wrist bend is a result of other things going in with the way the left forearm rolls, and that throwing the right wrist can't possibly add any speed. Either way, since posting this topic, it's been debated in varying forms across the Internet, again both directly and indirectly.

Before I go on, and to be clear, we're using the term "power accumulator 5" in a way that's not entirely serious. The right wrist folding back may or may not be part of the "power package" depending on how you define it. That's immaterial to us - we're not that serious about it. We're using the term "PA5" in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek fashion, though obviously one grounded in some TGM reality.

All that said, we recently determined that one way to possibly demonstrate the additional "power" (clubhead speed) provided by "PA5" would be to remove as many other power accumulators as possible. By removing the left arm, for example, we remove Power Accumulators #2, #3, and #4 (as TGM literalists see them), leaving only #1 (right arm thrust) as well as what we're calling #5.

The results are telling, and here they are as a series of three images which show the "throwing" of PA5:

Clubhead speed on the left: 60.2 MPH.

Clubhead speed on the right: 68.5 MPH.

That's an
8.3 MPH increase
, or an
increase of 13.8%
.

Dave made no efforts to change his swing. In fact, in the video, the frames line up perfectly in sequence with each other. From P7 to the last image, both videos are twelve frames apart. Yet the clubhead has moved an extra foot or so on the right because, at impact, it was moving faster.

Now, Dave still lost some PA5 in the left images. It's virtually impossible not to and still generate a swing speed north of 20 MPH or so.

Then, and I may have shared this graph before, but here you go: trail wrist angles of Anthony Kim and Steve Elkington. Pay particular attention to the green line. Before, during, and after impact the right wrist is going from flexion into a little bit of extension
very very quickly
.

One of the keys (ahem) to playing good golf is
a flat left wrist
, but the left wrist only needs to be flat
at impact
(and in some rare cases, like Lee Westwood, not even then). What it does after impact - some combination of rolling and dorsiflexing - is somewhat immaterial.

Now again, 95-99% of golfers need
more
shaft lean. 95-99% of golfers lose a flat left wrist
too soon
. This advice isn't necessarily for them (and note that if you're on a golf forum, you're likely already better than 50% of people, so this topic will pertain to you more than the general golf population).

The point remains, though: the right wrist being "thrown" does seem to add power (clubhead speed) to the golf swing. In the hands of a skilled player, its application is warranted. For example, you might be surprised to see PA5 showing up in this particular video, but there it is:

And what about Nick Clearwater's video showing the same drill (to an even larger extreme):

Again, some of this right wrist angle occurs naturally. The clubhead weighs a lot, and it's pulled in a straight line (clubhead droop is another example of this). But we believe and now have some more proof that adding to that "straightening" force by actively "throwing" the right wrist flexion can lead to increased clubhead speed.

That is a big difference! I imagine these figures are from TrackMan. Can you also give us the rest of the data, please e.g. ball speed, smash factor, height, carry, total distance etc. I'd be interested to know if there are any trade offs especially when it comes to centeredness of impact.

That is a big difference! I imagine these figures are from TrackMan. Can you also give us the rest of the data, please e.g. ball speed, smash factor, height, carry, total distance etc. I'd be interested to know if there are any trade offs especially when it comes to centeredness of impact.

No, we don't have that data. They're right-handed only swings, and the only thing we were interested in was clubhead speed, which Trackman
measures
(it can't measure or even calculate things like centeredness of contact). Every effort was made to make "the same swing" except for subtly changing #5. We recorded both in a high-speed session and recorded them from near the computer so you can see clubhead speed on the Trackman.

No, we don't have that data. They're right-handed only swings, and the only thing we were interested in was clubhead speed, which Trackman measures (it can't measure or even calculate things like centeredness of contact). Every effort was made to make "the same swing" except for subtly changing #5. We recorded both in a high-speed session and recorded them from near the computer so you can see clubhead speed on the Trackman.

The reason I asked was if Dave experienced any trade off with the additional MPH or whether it was pure extra distance i.e. he gained MPH but
lost
distance, for example, because his contact was poorer. Or he hit it too high, or lost accuracy or something similar. Do you know what I mean? TrackMan measures smash factor, maximum height etc. I was just wondering, that's all.

The reason I asked was if Dave experienced any trade off with the additional MPH or whether it was pure extra distance i.e. he gained MPH but lost distance, for example, because his contact was poorer. Or he hit it too high, or lost accuracy or something similar. Do you know what I mean? TrackMan measures smash factor, maximum height etc. I was just wondering, that's all.

Phil, that's beside the point. The point was not to determine whether something like "centeredness of contact" suffered - it was to determine whether speed could be added via #5. That is all.

It didn't happen, but Dave could have pured the one with no #5 and shanked the one in which he threw #5 and it would be irrelevant to the experiment. The point was not to determine how best to play golf one-handed, but how much #5 could potentially add when isolated as much as possible in making a motion most similar to a golf swing.

(Dave didn't shank either, and frankly I don't remember what his contact was like on each of the swings.)

Link to post

Share on other sites

The hard part here is that in putting this information out there we will be asked how and why we would teach this. That is not really the point...since most golfers bring the "5th PA" into play too much/soon so we would NEVER teach this with soooo many of them. The point is that a golfer can create the most speed by using all potential accumulators and that the right wrist bend and throw IS one. Having the primary lever system (left arm and clubshaft) line up properly at impact is simply most efficient.

The hard part here is that in putting this information out there we will be asked how and why we would teach this. That is not really the point...since most golfers bring the "5th PA" into play too much/soon so we would NEVER teach this with soooo many of them. The point is that a golfer can create the most speed by using all potential accumulators and that the right wrist bend and throw IS one. Having the primary lever system (left arm and clubshaft) line up properly at impact is simply most efficient.

Dave

The trouble that I see is that golfers are always going to want to know how to "do it better". So when information like this comes out the instinct is to want to know how to apply it.

"When do I do it?"

"Where do I apply the pressure?"

These kinds of questions are certainly going to get asked if you say this has the most speed. We cannot help ourselves. I now see that this is more or less an observation of what happens in a good swing more than it is "we found a way to hit it farther".

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

All that said, we recently determined that one way to possibly demonstrate the additional "power" (clubhead speed) provided by "PA5" would be to remove as many other power accumulators as possible. By removing the left arm, for example, we remove Power Accumulators #2, #3, and #4 (as TGM literalists see them), leaving only #1 (right arm thrust) as well as what we're calling #5.

Removing the left arm doesn't prevent the use of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th accumulators, it simply means you cannot cock the left hand, roll the left hand, or change the angle between the left arm and chest... Sound like an oxymoron? Let me explain;

The 1st accumulator is the bending of the right arm. If Dave had used that in isolation on his backswing, this is what would have happened;

Right arm bends at elbow.

Right hand moves towards right shoulder.

Angle between right forearm and right upper arm decreases to around 90 degrees (for argument's sake).

Distance between right hand and right shoulder shortens by 8" (for argument's sake).

That's the 1st accumulator in all its isolated glory. So what does that mean for the club? Very simply, the clubhead will move by 8" in a straight line towards the shoulder. That's it.

But on Dave's backswing we can see the club's moved a lot more than that.

Let's start with Dave's clubface. There's no picture of address for us to see, but I should imagine Dave's clubface at the start is pretty much facing the target. But at the top of his swing the clubface is facing the camera. That's a change of 90 degrees or so. Dave's not pivoted much during his backswing, if at all, so we know that's not down to him turning his shoulders 90 degrees. We know from above that the 1st accumulator didn't do that, so what was it? That was the 3rd accumulator.

As well as the open clubface, we can see the clubhead has moved vertically from the ground more than the 8" or so caused by the 1st accumulator. In fact it's just above knee height.

From floor to knee, let's say it's 22" for argument's sake. We'll deduct the 8" from the 1st accumulator and we're left with 14" of vertical movement we can't account for. That would be the 2nd accumulator.

Finally, Dave's right hand has moved away from the ball on the backswing, not just towards the right shoulder (the 1st accumulator), but also away from whatever his target is. That is the 4th accumulator.

The irony here is, given the "TGM literalist" comment, these misunderstandings are from taking TGM concepts literally (i.e. with no left wrist, there can be no 2nd accumulator). That's not the case, as power accumulators are simply out of line positions- the left hand / wrist / arm is an easy way to see those out of line positions. If you remove the left arm, you can still have those out of line positions, as demonstrated by Dave.

Removing the left arm doesn't prevent the use of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th accumulators, it simply means you cannot cock the left hand, roll the left hand, or change the angle between the left arm and chest...

I contend that, by definition, it does. But it's really very much beside the point since the actions of these "ghost" accumulators are the same in both swings.

Originally Posted by Taggsy

That's the 1st accumulator in all its isolated glory. So what does that mean for the club? Very simply, the clubhead will move by 8" in a straight line towards the shoulder. That's it.

If you bend your right forearm the clubhead is not going to move the same distance closer to the right shoulder as the right hand does. It goes from (length of club + length of right arm) to the hypotenuse of the "right upper arm/right-lower-arm-and-club" triangle. Your math is off. if I do nothing but bend the right elbow at address the clubhead moves a HECK of a lot farther than 8" and it gets a LOT closer than 8" closer to the right shoulder.

Originally Posted by Taggsy

But on Dave's backswing we can see the club's moved a lot more than that.

Of course it did.

Originally Posted by Taggsy

Let's start with Dave's clubface. There's no picture of address for us to see, but I should imagine Dave's clubface at the start is pretty much facing the target. But at the top of his swing the clubface is facing the camera. That's a change of 90 degrees or so. Dave's not pivoted much during his backswing, if at all, so we know that's not down to him turning his shoulders 90 degrees. We know from above that the 1st accumulator didn't do that, so what was it? That was the 3rd accumulator.

By definition it's not. There's no left arm, so there's no third accumulator. There's no left wrist, so there's no second accumulator. No left arm means no fourth accumulator either. But again, that's beside the point.

Yes, the right forearm rotates too. But it rotated the same in both swings. Everything else - the accumulators (as defined or in their "ghost" form), etc. - was "the same" in both swings
except
what we're calling "PA5." The point was to isolate it as much as possible, and I think we've demonstrated quite nicely that the throwing action of the right wrist can add speed to the clubhead.

So now we have the theoretical as well as some empirical.

Taggsy, with all due respect, we only called this "PA5" in a semi-tongue-in-cheek sort of way. TGM was great in the 60s. It's still great, but the time has come for people to realize that TGM got a good amount of stuff wrong. Not even the majority, or close to it, but a good amount is just plain wrong. I'm not terribly interested in a theoretical debate of TGM "stuff" in this thread. This thread exists because we believe - and will until it's been disproven - that "throwing" the right wrist angle can add clubhead speed. Simple as that.

The trouble that I see is that golfers are always going to want to know how to "do it better". So when information like this comes out the instinct is to want to know how to apply it.

"When do I do it?"

"Where do I apply the pressure?"

These kinds of questions are certainly going to get asked if you say this has the most speed. We cannot help ourselves. I now see that this is more or less an observation of what happens in a good swing more than it is "we found a way to hit it farther".

It is more research based than anything, no question. I felt it was very important that golfers understand this is happening, in this manner, in the best motions. I can say, however, that I have taught this to accomplished players when it was the right component to work on.

Link to post

Share on other sites

I contend that, by definition, it does. But it's really very much beside the point since the actions of these "ghost" accumulators are the same in both swings.

And I contend that by definition, by removing the left arm you have destroyed the Triangle Assembly, and in doing so the whole Power Package concept. Ergo, there are no power accumulators on Dave's swing whatsoever. If you're happy admit the actions of the "ghost" accumulators are the same as the actual accumulators, what's the difference between Dave's one-handed and two-handed backswings?

Originally Posted by iacas

If you bend your right forearm the clubhead is not going to move the same distance closer to the right shoulder as the right hand does. It goes from (length of club + length of right arm) to the hypotenuse of the "right upper arm/right-lower-arm-and-club" triangle. Your math is off. if I do nothing but bend the right elbow at address the clubhead moves a HECK of a lot farther than 8" and it gets a LOT closer than 8" closer to the right shoulder.

You've completely misunderstood what the first accumulator is. It's simply the bending of the right arm. What you've described above is the bending of the right arm, in conjunction with keeping the clubshaft on plane. You can't keep the clubshaft on plane without using a combination of accumulators.

Originally Posted by iacas

By definition it's not. There's no left arm, so there's no third accumulator. There's no left wrist, so there's no second accumulator. No left arm means no fourth accumulator either. But again, that's beside the point.

And again, by definition there are no accumulators at all because you have no power package. But if that's besides the point, why have you mentioned power accumulators at all in your post showing Dave's swing?

Originally Posted by iacas

The point was to isolate it as much as possible, and I think we've demonstrated quite nicely that the throwing action of the right wrist can add speed to the clubhead.

What you've demonstrated above is the The Flail, 2-K. On Dave's one-handed swing, the closer the clubshaft and his right arm get to being in line, the faster the clubhead is travelling. He's in centrifugal acceleration until the clubshaft and his right arm are in line. Your study shows a 150 degree angle between clubshaft and right arm has a faster clubhead speed than a 140 angle. Each angle up until 180 degrees will have an increase of speed. That's nothing new, it's in TGM.

Originally Posted by iacas

Taggsy, with all due respect, we only called this "PA5" in a semi-tongue-in-cheek sort of way. TGM was great in the 60s. It's still great, but the time has come for people to realize that TGM got a good amount of stuff wrong. Maybe not even the majority, or close to it, but a good amount is just plain wrong. I'm not terribly interested in a theoretical debate of TGM "stuff" in this thread. This thread exists because we believe - and will until it's been disproven - that "throwing" the right wrist angle can add clubhead speed. Simple as that.

Should most people try to do it? Nope. Can some? You bet.

I'm not contesting your use of the term "PA5", I've explained previously what it actually is in TGM terms. The reason I'm posting here is because your understanding of TGM's concepts is wrong. And when you don't understand the concepts, it's very easy for you to say "the majority of the book is wrong". You have a large, interested, and intelligent readership on these forums, and for some, the only understanding they have of TGM is from what you tell them. I think you owe them a service of using TGM terms and concepts properly, especially when pointing out "missing" parts from the book.

But again, that's a debate for another time.

Most importantly for this thread, I've not once said your concept is wrong, I totally agree with you that throwing your right wrist angle can add clubhead speed. The point is, it's nothing new.

Previously, I did try to map out and practice a 50% and a 75% distance map range for each of my clubs, but it started to mess with my contact. I'm not ready to 'choose' to put in the time for that much even for the benefit - you know my play philosophy....
so I have pretty much have my 'full' swing and my 'extra' swing - both of which I'm very happy with. I've added a little loft/deloft swing thoughts to them for fine tuning. Half swings are pretty much a 'thumb rule' at this point for distance only - it'll be fun when I'm ready to learn those too, however, I imagine there's a lot of control I'll be able to add to my approaches. For now, I pretty much use those when I have to punch out from under something - i.e., my half 8i is about 100 yards vs a SW 100 yard 'full'. So I can get a little lower. Anything else is just a 'feel' shot. and it takes practice to get repeatable for 'feel' shots.....practice I'm not committing to at this time.
Frankly, I'm liking Erik's post about 'hooding'/punching lower flight shots on another thread, I like the 'feel' better and suspect I can get more bang for less practice.

Sure there is a distance threshold to entry at the elite level but delta between shorter and longer hitter hasn't changed.
If anything the equipment is optimized (best energy transfer with most repeat-ability) helping EVERYBODY to make distance more of a differentiating skill than it ever was. i.e., it is more of a skill based meritocracy now than it ever was.
Sweet...! I'll take two of each. Gotta be some 'formula'. "The trap 270 out ain't really in play for me bro.."
And really juiced up about the 'no-consequence' part..

Hey Joro - WELCOME to the Sandtrap. I bet you have some great stories and fun comments. It's good discussion with a great crowd and the disagreements are fun too if you remember it's just a game we all like.